By David Ehl (DW) -The dispute over Kashmir has poisoned relations between India and Pakistan since the two became independent countries in 1947. Here’s an overview of how tensions have grown more dangerous over the past seven decades.

Like so many conflicts around the world, the dispute over Kashmir began with independence from a colonial power. In 1947, the United Kingdom gave in to the struggle for freedom in its Indian colony and granted it independence. The retreating British left behind two states: the secular Indian Union and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The partition of India in 1947 presented a problem to the then princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, located right along the two new states’ northern border.

Traditionally, the state was ruled by a Hindu maharaja (local ruler), but the majority of the population was Muslim. Hoping to be able to declare his territory independent, Maharaja Hari Singh initially did not join either India or Pakistan, both of which took an interest in this special social constellation in the Kashmir Valley.

To this day, India sees itself as a secular nation in which several religions coexist. This makes Jammu and Kashmir, the only province with a Muslim majority, an important part of India’s religious plurality.

At the time, Pakistan saw itself as the home of all Muslims in South Asia. Its founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, envisioned Pakistan and India as separate Muslim and Hindu nations on the subcontinent. Until 1971, Bangladesh, which is located to the east of India, was part of Pakistan.

The Kashmir wars

While the maharaja hesitated to make Kashmir part of either country, in 1947, Pakistani guerrillas tried to bring the principality of Kashmir under their control. Hari Singh turned to New Delhi for help, and it didn’t take long for troops from India and Pakistan to face off.

The first war for Kashmir began in October 1947 and ended in January 1949 with the de facto division of the state along the so-called Line of Control (LoC), the unofficial border line still recognized today.

Back then, the UN sent an observer mission that is still on the ground today. Pakistan has controlled the northern special province of Gilgit-Baltistan and the sickle-shaped Azad Kashmir sub-region since 1949.

The Indian-held section became the federal state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1957, with special autonomous status allowing the state’s legislature to have a say in legislation covering all issues except defense, foreign affairs and communications.

The following decades were marked by an arms race on both sides. India began to develop a nuclear bomb and Pakistan also started a nuclear program with the aim of being able to stand up to its giant neighbor. Today, India and Pakistan have an estimated 140 and 150 nuclear warheads respectively. Unlike Pakistan, India has explicitly ruled out a nuclear first strike.

Pakistan also spends huge amounts on its nuclear program as the country tries to make sure it won’t lag behind its neighbor in military terms.

Watch video02:16

India revokes Kashmir’s special status

In 1965, Pakistan once again used military force to try to change the borders, but lost to the Indian military. The neighbors clashed for a third time in 1971, but this time Kashmir was not at the center of the confrontation. Instead, it was the independence struggle in Bangladesh that precipitated the war. India, which supported the Bangladeshi independence fighters, once again defeated Pakistan.

A year later, India and Pakistan signed the Simla Agreement that underlines the importance of the LoC and commits to bilateral negotiations to clarify claims to the Kashmir region once and for all.

In 1984, the nations clashed again; this time over the India-controlled Siachen Glacier. And in 1999, both sides fought for control of military posts on the Indian side of the LoC. In 2003, India and Pakistan signed a new ceasefire — but it has been fragile since 2016.

INDIA-PAKISTAN RIVALRY: KASHMIRIS PAY A HIGH PRICE

An unprecedented danger?

On February 27, Pakistan’s military said that it had shot down two Indian fighter jets over disputed Kashmir. A Pakistani military spokesman said the jets were shot down after they’d entered Pakistani airspace. It is the first time in history that two nuclear-armed powers have conducted air strikes against each other.

China, which has a long border with Jammu and Kashmir, also plays a role in this conflict. In 1962, China occupied a part of India that borders Kashmir — and entered into an alliance with Pakistan. To this day, China and Pakistan trade via the newly constructed Karakoram Highway, which connects the countries via the western Kashmir region. As part of the multibillion-dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project, that corridor is being expanded.

This former gravel road is currently being developed into a multi-lane asphalt highway that can be used all year long. China is investing $57 billion (€51 billion) in Pakistani infrastructure and energy projects, more than in any other South Asian country. The economic alliance with its powerful neighbor has helped solidify Pakistan’s claims to the Himalayan foothills.

Rebels and attacks

The governments of neighboring states are no longer the only parties to the conflict in Kashmir, however. Using violence, militant groups have been trying to disrupt the status quo on both sides of the LoC since at least the 1980s. Their attacks have contributed to a deterioration of the security situation.

At least 45,000 people have been killed in terrorist attacks over the past 30 years. And the total number of deaths resulting from this conflict is at least 70,000, according to estimates by human rights organizations.

By Thalif Deen - UNITED NATIONS - When the UN Security Council met last week to discuss the deaths and devastation caused to civilians in ongoing military conflicts and civil wars, the killings in Yemen and the air attacks on hospitals, schools, mosques, and market places—whether deliberate or otherwise– were singled out as the worst ever.

But the destruction and irreparable damage to civilian infrastructure and human lives were caused by weapons provided by some of the permanent members of the Security Council, including the US, France and UK.

And last week, in defiance of US Congressional opposition to arms sales to some of the warring Middle Eastern nations, the Trump administration went one better: it justified the proposed sale of a hefty $8.1 billion dollars in American arms to Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia under a so-called “emergency notification”.

All three countries are part of a Saudi-led coalition unleashing attacks on Yemen battling Houthi insurgents backed by Iran– and the new weapons systems are expected to add more fire power to the coalition.

The “emergency notification” for arms sales was not only an act of defiance against the US Congress but also an attempt to placate American allies in the Middle East and, more importantly, the powerful arms lobby in the United States.

One of arguments adduced by the Trump administration is that increasing arms sales to Middle Eastern allies are meant to counter an “anticipated Iranian aggression”.

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and coordinator of the program in Middle Eastern Studies, told IPS this is not about deterring Iranian aggression and it is certainly not an “emergency.”

“It’s about the profits of American arms manufacturers at the expense of countless Yemeni lives.”

“This is but the most extreme manifestation, however, of a longstanding bipartisan policy of transferring deadly and sophisticated armaments to the family dictatorships in the Middle East”, said Zunes, who also serves as a senior policy analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus project of the Institute for Policy Studies.

He pointed out that It is ironic that a nation which emerged in revolution against monarchy, would be the world’s number one arms supplier of absolute monarchies today.

According to a story in the Wall Street Journal May 25, the Houthis are less ideologically aligned with Tehran, and Iran denies arming the group. But US officials disagree, saying Iran has trained them and provided them with weapons.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council May 23 that civilians continue to make up the vast majority of casualties in conflict, with more than 22,800 civilians dying or being injured in 2018 in just six countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen.

He stressed the need for the Security Council to do more to enhance compliance with the laws of war. http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/05/un-failed-civilians/

In a statement released last week, the London-based Amnesty International was dead on target when it ridiculed the US argument that some of the weapons supplied to the Saudi-led coalition were “precision-guided” to avoid civilian casualties.

“The great military powers cynically boast about ‘precision’ warfare and ‘surgical’ strikes that distinguish between fighters and civilians. But the reality on the ground is that civilians are routinely targeted where they live, work, study, worship and seek medical care.”, the statement added.

AI said parties to armed conflict unlawfully kill, maim and forcibly displace millions of civilians while world leaders shirk their responsibility and turn their backs on war crimes and immense suffering.

Asked for his comments, Philippe Nassif, Advocacy Director – Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International, told IPS decision made by President Trump to circumvent Congress and authorize billions of dollars’ worth of arms sales to serial human rights abusers Saudi Arabia and the UAE is extremely unfortunate and reckless.

“Both these countries have used US made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, a country mired in conflict that has been made worse by the conduct of the UAE and Saudi led coalition,” he added.

The Trump administration has had a blank check policy when it comes to arming its Middle Eastern allies, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia.

Nassif pointed out that the atrocious human rights records of these governments, where executions, extrajudicial killings, mass incarceration, torture, and indefinite detentions are part of daily life for their citizens, is made worse by the US continuing to arm these governments.

“Now that the UAE and Saudi Arabia will receive new American weapons, we can expect a continuation of the hell that has been brought upon Yemen, where 11 million people are suffering from famine, hundreds of thousands have been displaced, and thousands killed,” he noted.

“We can also expect weapons to fall into the wrong hands, such as Al Qaeda, or be sent to other conflict zones where the Saudi’s and UAE are backing ascending autocrats, such as Haftar in Libya,” Nassif declared.

In a statement released May 24, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said “I made a determination pursuant to section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act and directed the Department to complete immediately the formal notification of 22 pending arms transfers to Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia totaling approximately $8.1 billion to deter Iranian aggression and build partner self-defense capacity”.

“These sales will support our allies, enhance Middle East stability, and help these nations to deter and defend themselves from the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said.

Delaying this shipment, Pompeo argued, could cause degraded systems and a lack of necessary parts and maintenance that could create severe airworthiness and interoperability concerns for key partners, during a time of increasing regional volatility.

He argued that national security concerns have been exacerbated by many months of Congressional delay in addressing these critical requirements, “and have called into doubt our reliability as a provider of defense capabilities, opening opportunities for U.S. adversaries to exploit.”

The equipment to the three countries includes aircraft support maintenance; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); munitions; and other supplies.

“Today’s action will quickly augment our partners’ capacity to provide for their own self-defense and reinforce recent changes to U.S. posture in the region to deter Iran. I intend for this determination to be a one-time event,” Pompeo added.

He pointed out that Section 36 is a long-recognized authority and has been utilized by at least four previous administrations since 1979, including Presidents Reagan and Carter.

“This specific measure does not alter our long-standing arms transfer review process with Congress. I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to develop prudent measures to advance and protect U.S. national security interests in the region,” he declared.

The United States is, and must remain, a reliable security partner to our allies and partners around the world. These partnerships are a cornerstone of our National Security Strategy, which this decision reaffirms, Pompeo said.

(Webpublicapress) Washington D.C. – US President Donald Trump rejected a bill from Congress to end assistance to Saudi Arabia for the Yemen war. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the veto would serve to ”perpetuate America’s shameful involvement” in the crisis, DW (Deutsche Welle) reported quoting other news agencies.

President Trump issued a veto on 16. April to kill a resolution approved by both houses of Congress which sought to end US military assistance for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

The move marked the second time that Trump has used his veto power to reject a bill from the legislature. To override the president’s veto, the resolution would need a two-thirds majority, which it currently does not have in the deeply divided Congress.

The resolution’s approval in both the House of Representatives and the Senate had been seen as a historic milestone already, as it was the first time that a bill invoking the 1973 War Powers Resolution reached the president’s desk.

“This resolution is an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities, endangering the lives of American citizens and brave service members, both today and in the future,” Trump wrote explaining why he issued the veto.

Germany restarts some arms exports to Saudi Arabia as well

The president also argued the resolution would “harm the foreign policy of the United States” and “harm our bilateral relationships.”

“Peace in Yemen requires a negotiated settlement,” the president said. He also highlighted that the US was not actively engaged in hostilities, except against al-Qaeda extremists.

United Arab Emirates Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash reacted swiftly to Trump’s veto.

“President Trump’s assertion of support to the Arab Coalition in Yemen is a positive signal,” Gargash said on Twitter. The decision is both “timely and strategic” he added. The UAE is the Saudi Arabia’s principal ally in the coalition.

The US currently pours billions of dollars of arms to the Saudi-led coalition fighting against Houthi rebels, who are believed to be supported by Iran, in Yemen. With the resolution, members of Congress were acting on their concerns about the thousands of civilians killed in coalition airstrikes since the conflict began in 2014.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced Trump’s veto, saying it would serve to ”perpetuate America’s shameful involvement in this heartbreaking crisis.”

Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, sponsor of the resolution, said Trump was “risking the lives of millions of Yemeni civilians to famine, deadly airstrikes, and the war crimes of the Saudi regime.”

International Rescue Committee president and CEO David Miliband said that vetoing the measure represents an “effective green light for the war strategy that has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis to continue.”

The fighting in Yemen, the Arab world’s poorest country, has left millions suffering from food shortages and medical care shortages. It has also pushed the country to the brink of famine.

By John J. Metzler - UNITED NATIONS — For nearly two months, large popular demonstrations have rocked Algeria protesting the candidacy of incumbent President Abdelaziz Bouteflika who planned to run for a fifth five-year term in national elections. The protests evoked the so-called Arab Spring in which demonstrations and later armed revolts reverberated from Tunisia to Syria to topple and challenge long entrenched authoritarian rulers. But what appeared to be a brief whiff of democracy in 2011 soon turned into the Arab Winter with widening chaos in Libya, renewed military rule in Egypt, and churning carnage in Syria.

Would Algeria be different?

Wijkimedia Commons

After all this North African land already experienced a brutal civil war in the early 1990’s between Islamic fundamentalists and the current ruling regime in which 200,000 died. No matter that president Bouteflika (82), who suffered a stroke in 2013 and has rarely been seen in public since, would be a mere figurehead for le pouvoir (the power) the country’s secretive Deep State, a powerful political/military/business establishment who runs the resource rich North African state as a secular cash cow.

To their credit, the masses of mostly young Algerians who pour into the streets of Algiers have focused more on democratic protest than revolutionary confrontation; the majority of the population of 44 million are young and know only the rule of the current president in power since 1999. Indeed while Bouteflika likely saved the country from a far worse fate, that was a generation ago. But times have changed and le pouvoirhas become a corrupt autocracy.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres “salutes the mature and calm nature in which the Algerian people have been expressing their desire for change.” A statement from Guterres added, “He looks forward to a peaceful and democratic transition process that reflects the wishes of the Algerian people.”

Since independence from France in 1962, the ruling FLN party has served as the authoritarian gatekeeper of Algerian politics; control, patronage and fuzzy Arab socialism embody the once revolutionary movement of Ben Bella who still basks in the aura of the independence struggle which fought France and became a left wing darling of the Third World.

Algerians, especially the young who don’t personally remember the Independence war from France in the 1950’s, nor the bloody Islamic conflict in the 1990’s, view the ruling party as deeply corrupt. Protesters of the “Arab Street” wished to oust not only Bouteflika but all the denizens of his entrenched regime.

Bouteflika was disparagingly known as the President in the Picture frame. Since his tragic illness, he has not spoken nor carried out his duties. According to Le Point columnist Kamel Daoud, his official pose was photoshopped and oil paintings of the leader were presented to loyalists. Yet as Daoud says, “The use of the portrait, triumphs humiliation and insults surrealism and has become the subject of national mockery in Algeria.”

Now that Bouteflika has resigned, the powerful military has jockeyed to grab power.

Algeria is strategically placed along the Mediterranean coast, bordering six countries including Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Mali, Niger, and Mauritania. It forms part of the nexus of people smuggling routes from sub-Saharan Africa to the coast. While lawless Libya poses a far more immediate threat for illegal migrants going to Europe, this could change if Algeria were to face instability or civil conflict.

Algeria is four times the size of France, the former colonial power. It’s GDP, largely due to huge Oil and gas deposits creates a $5,000 per capita income. In 2017, Algeria exported $22 billion in oil and $14 billion in natural gas. While Europe remains the major market taking nearly two thirds of production, the USA remains a key importer as well.

Yet the crisis of rising expectations, combined with a staggering youth unemployment rate of 29 percent, underscores the challenge for any new government be it from the military ranks, le pouvoir’s hidden hand, or the free choice of the ballot box.

Here lies a ticking demographic time bomb. Should Algeria loosen the reigns of its strict but secular society, shall there be a revival of the Islamic fundamentalism which shadowed this land in the 1990’s? Will many young Algerians head for France joining an already large North African community? More ominously, shall Algeria become a conduit for migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa thus rising tensions inside Europe?

An interim President Abdelkader Bensalah has been named before elections which must be held in three months. Can the people keep their cool and will Le Pouvoir allow the vote? The game is hardly over.

John J. Metzler is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He is the author of Divided Dynamism the Diplomacy of Separated Nations: Germany, Korea, China (2014).

(WEBPUBLICA) NEW YORK - A Christchurch vigil to shun racism and grieve for 50 Muslims killed last week in local mosques drew 15,000 people. One of the victims who was injured in the shooting said the vigil showed “that we are all one,” DW (Deutsche Welle) reported.

New Zealanders continued their homage Sunday to victims of the Christchurch massacre by gathering in the city’s Hagley Park near the al-Noor mosque, one of two places of worship targeted by a suspected white supremacist.

Many non-Muslim women wore head scarves Sunday, some made by members of Christchurch’s Muslim community, to support victims and fight racism, Reuters reported.

A similar rally shunning racism while endorsing diversity took place in central Auckland, with participants carrying placards saying “Migrant lives matter” and “Refugees welcome here.” The rallies came in the wake of Friday’s nationwide moment of silence.

New Zealand statistics suggest that around one percent of New Zealand’s 4.9 million residents could be Muslim.

Christchurch’s Linwood mosque, the second attacked on March 15, re-opened Sunday. Hasty work, also done at the al-Noor mosque, to repair bullet holes and remove bloodstains was evident.

On Friday, the city had also seen the burials of 26 victims at its Memori Park Cemetery.

The 28-year-old Australian citizen suspected of carrying out the attacks is due to appear in court on April 5 to face an initial murder charge. More are expected to follow.

Recovering well

Sunday’s evening vigil at Hagley Park began with an Islamic prayer, followed by a reading of the names of those killed at Friday prayers on March 15, among them present and former pupils of Christchurch high schools.

Present in a wheelchair was 21-year-old Mustafa Boztas, who said he was recovering well from bullet wounds in the leg and liver.

“It’s beautiful to see what the community has put together to show they care about us, and to show that we are all one,” said Boztas.

Sam Brosnaham, student president at the city’s Canterbury University, urged New Zealanders to express openness to persons who “do not look like you, do not talk like you, or express faith in the same way you do,” reported New Zealand’s Fairfax media website known as Stuff.

It also quoted a Muslim students’ association spokesman who said the outpouring of grief was “reassuring for us Muslims here who want to contribute to New Zealand society,” but added that Islamophobic remarks still needed to be challenged.

‘Many faiths brought together’

Catholic bishop Paul Martin said there had been a “misuse and abuse” of God’s gift of freedom.

“We are many faiths brought together by tragedy,” Martin said.

The vigil ended with a rendition of “Welcome Home,” a diversity-appeal song heard often in recent days, performed at Hagley by Conor Moore — composed in 2005 by New Zealand’s legendary singer-song-writer Dave Dobbyn.

It includes the refrain: “See I made a space for you now, Wecome home, From the bottom of our hearts.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced Sunday that a national remembrance service would be held on Friday at Christchurch’s Hagley Park for people “all around the world.”

It would show that “”New Zealanders are compassionate, inclusive and diverse, and that we will protect those values” and would be jointly led by the government, the city, local Ngāi Tahu Maori and the Muslim community, she said.

By Christoph Strack (DW) — Pope Francis is the first time the pope has ever visited the Arabian Peninsula, the birthplace of Islam. Francis’ trip to the United Arab Emirates has given new hope to interfaith dialogue, says DW’s Christoph Strack.

A trip like this is almost provocative in an era of flourishing populism, building walls, hatred of the oppressed and religious persecution. Pope Francis’ historic decision to travel to the Arabian Peninsulais the antithesis of all that.

A papal journey always comes with fanfare. Francis’ trip to the United Arab Emirates was no different. There were plenty of colorful moments, but perhaps the most inspirational of them all was the image of the grand imam, the sheikh and the pope hand-in-hand.

Francis and the grand imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb, signed a joint declaration — a strict rejection of violence and terrorism, an appeal for development and justice, and an affirmation of women’s and children’s rights. Some aspects of the declaration can be interpreted as an admonition to the UAE — a country with a poor human rights record.

A call for peace

The “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” is a message to the global community. That is why this trip, the pope’s 27th thus far, is his perhaps Francis’ most important. Previous travels have taken him to the Holy Land, Turkey, the Central African Republic and Azerbaijan, to Egypt, Myanmar and Bangladesh. It was Francis’ fifth meeting with Grand Imam el-Tayeb. It would be interesting to know whether el-Tayeb, who is an influential authority in Egypt, will read the document out loud back in his home country, which has also has a poor record on human rights.

DW’s Christoph Strack

Francis’ trip to the UAE evoked recollections of a similar journey exactly 800 years ago, when Francis of Assisi, determined to forge peace, traveled to the Nile during the Fifth Crusade and preached to the Muslim army’s Sultan Al Kamil. Today, politicians might call him crazy. The current pope, a Jesuit from Argentina, is the first head of the Catholic Church to choose the name of that religious order’s founder — Francis.

During the interreligious conference and even the large mass in Abu Dhabi, the pope spoke of Saint Francis and his instructions on how his brethren were to approach Saracens and non-Christians: “At that time, as many people were setting out, heavily armed, Saint Francis pointed out that Christians set out armed only with their humble faith and concrete love.”

Francis didn’t mince words in Abu Dhabi. “Human fraternity requires of us, as representatives of the world’s religions, the duty to reject every nuance of approval from the word ‘war.’ Let us return it to its miserable crudeness. Its fateful consequences are before our eyes,” he said, naming Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Libya. “Together, let us commit ourselves against the logic of armed power.”

From a political point of view, Francis was undiplomatically direct. But in the framework of his trip, his remarks were consistent. UAE officials had stressed ahead of the visit that Francis could say whatever he pleased. The pope took advantage of that license, but he didn’t exploit it.

Not everything will change for the better after this trip, the speeches and the declaration. There will continue to be extremists, terrorists and Christians who are persecuted for their faith, be it in Pakistan or the Arabian Peninsula. But neither side can go back on the words of the Abu Dhabi declaration.

By Nisan Ahmado (VOA News) - WASHINGTON — Qatar’s official withdrawal from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) this week has renewed debate over the rift with its neighbor Saudi Arabia, with some observers saying the move could further complicate the relationship between the two Gulf countries.

The departure, which was announced earlier in December, took effect Tuesday, ending the peninsular Arab country’s 58 years of membership in the international union.

The move is seen by many analysts to be shadowed by the political atmosphere in the Gulf region following a Saudi-led blockade on Qatar since mid-2017.

“There is a geopolitical angle, it is about reinforcing the message that Qatar is acting in what it considers to be its own national interest given the blockade imposed on Qatar since 2017 by fellow OPEC members Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates,” Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a Gulf expert at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, told VOA.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain imposed an abrupt trade-and-travel blockade on their fellow Gulf Cooperation Council member, Qatar, in June 2017. The countries accused Qatar of fueling terrorism by supporting Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood group in Egypt and maintaining relations with Iran. The relations have since remained in a standoff.

Other GCC members

Ulrichsen said Qatar’s decision is being closely watched by other fellow members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) who have also voiced concerns about the direction Saudi Arabia is moving in terms of its foreign policy decisions under Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Qatar’s officials in the past have denied their decision to quit OPEC was influenced by the divide with Saudi Arabia, saying the move was to turn the focus from oil to other energy resources.

As a minor OPEC supplier of oil, Qatar had 600,000 barrels a day of crude oil production, constituting less than 2 percent of the group’s total output. It ranks, however, as the world’s No. 3 producer of natural gas and the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas.

“The withdrawal decision reflects Qatar’s desire to focus its efforts on plans to develop and increase its natural gas production,” the country’s Minister of Energy, Saad al-Kaabi, said in a tweet early last month.

Al-Kaabi then said the decision was not going to affect the global oil process given his country’s low oil output.

Experts warn the decision could potentially also affect the status of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which is at an all-time low in its ability to preserve unity since its establishment in 1981.

Ali Fathollah-Nejad, a Doha-based scholar with the Brookings Institution, charged that GCC has, since the 2017 Gulf crisis, ceased to function effectively because of its inability to find a solution to several political and economic issues among its members.

Fathollah-Nejad said Qatar’s growing role in the Council had irritated Saudi Arabia, the biggest and richest member.

“Qatar has started in the 2000s to engage in an independent foreign policy and become ambitious to a point that was unacceptable to Riyadh, as the latter has the goal of being the uncontested power in the Arabian Peninsula and within the GCC,” he told VOA.

The GCC concluded its most recent summit in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, on Dec. 10, without reaching any decisions regarding the crisis with Qatar.

Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani received an official invitation from Saudi King Salamn bin Abdulaziz, but only a delegation headed by Qatar Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Sultan bin Saad Al Muraikhi attended the meeting.

By John J. Metzler - New York — It’s that time of the year again to consult the crystal snow globe and look ahead at what global political crises we may face in the upcoming year. After a tumultuous 2018, it would be nice to have a respite from the political jolts, lurches, and surprises of the past months, but that alas, is unlikely.

So let’s tour the world and view some of the key challenges facing the USA.

China: The relationship increasingly concerns Trade tensions and South China Sea/Taiwan status. The Trump Administration’s commercial Cold war with China is hardly over but Beijing may blink.

The USA has played tough in trade negotiations and it looks like China will tactically concede. Yet massive trade deficits of past decades can’t be wished away by a pen stroke nor can long-lost American industrial jobs from the last thirty years be brought back by good wishes. Comprehensive and fair agreements are needed to even the commercial playing field and to tighten the rules regarding China’s high-tech and intellectual property theft.

The South China Sea presents a more complex geopolitical puzzle. China’s territorial maritime ambitions, freedom of navigation issues, as well as continuing threats to democratic Taiwan pose a clear and present danger to East Asian stability.

Korean Peninsula: We need a comprehensive diplomatic peace settlement for the Korean peninsula. Just a year ago, armed conflict was a real possibility with North Korea until both the South Korean government and the Trump Administration (with China’s help) pulled Pyongyang back from the brink. The extraordinary Singapore Summit offered positive political optics but as I said then, style over substance. Now what? We stopped the ticking nuclear clock in the North’s nuclear program but sadly I sense this is a pause in Kim Jong-Un’s long-term game strategy. Kim won’t give up nukes but is trying to swoon and cajole South Korea’s president Moon away from the USA and to accept a poisoned chalice unification deal. While the Winter Olympic thaw worked to defuse dangerous tensions, we are still not yet near signing a formal peace treaty ending the Korean War.

Europe: The European Union will be challenged by Brexit or rather Brexit will backfire on the British. The United Kingdom stands to lose by leaving Europe especially in the slipshod and shambolic way the process has turned out. Serious political turbulence will affect Europe; Britain, France, and Germany. Farther east, a stormy relationship with Russia continues largely over Moscow’s moves in Ukraine. The festering Ukraine crisis continues to destabilize Russia’s relations with the West.

Syria/Iraq: I have been saying solve Syria now for years. The war has churned on for eight years. More than a half million people have died with almost six million refugees and millions more displaced inside their own country. Amid the disparate players, it’s probably safer that American troops will be drawn down given competing powers (Turkey, Russia, Iran), rival factions (Assad regime, Kurds), and a lethal gaggle of terrorist groups (ISIL, Al Qaida, Al Nusra). The USA is better removed from that quagmire.

Keeping the commitment to Iraq won by so much blood and treasure remains vital for the U.S. There’s a glimmer of hope reinforced by President Trump’s Christmas visit to the frontline troops in Baghdad. Don’t squander hard-won past gains in Iraq.

What would be the “Trump’s factor” in 2019? U.S. President Donald J. Trump chairs a meeting of the United Nations Security Council in New York, September 2018 (Courtesy Facebook photo for education only)

Iran: Last year’s massive popular demonstrations rocked Iranian cities protesting the Islamic Republic. Will the smoldering embers of social and political resentment to the Mullah regime
resurface given Iran’s dire economic situation? Iran could easily spark a Mideast crisis.

Yemen and the humanitarian basket: The UN does humanitarian aid well. But we still must solve root problems, not just treat symptoms. As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said at the start of his tenure two years ago, preventive diplomacy is key. The problem is stopping ongoing crises such as Syria, Yemen, and Congo. Yemen faces a massive humanitarian crisis with a fleeting hope of a UN-brokered political settlement.

Venezuela: While the socialist system has collapsed this once reasonably prosperous and middle-class country, the Maduro regime nonetheless endures, backed by Cuban secret police. More than 3 million refugees have fled Venezuela, mostly to neighboring Colombia and Brazil.

Wild Card Wishes:

Managing or enduring a tricky relationship with Turkey’s increasingly authoritarian President Erdogan.

Returning normality to Libya, a country serving as a conduit for massive illegal migrant flows into Italy and a nexus of human trafficking.

And for the U.S. to refocus on foreign policy certainty, clarity, and dependability.

Happy New Year!!

John J. Metzler is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He is the author of Divided Dynamism the Diplomacy of Separated Nations: Germany, Korea, China (2014).

WEBPUBLICA UNITED NATIONS (New York)– Hunger and disease have killed 85,000 infant children caught in Yemen’s war since 2015, according to Save the Children organization. Its estimate coincides with a UN envoy’s visit to Sanaa ahead of talks due in Sweden next month, DW reported quoting other news agencies.

Save the Children said its figures were based on historically verified mortality rates for untreated cases of Severe Acute Malnutrition or SAM. These show that up to 30 percent of under-5′s die if their malnutrition is neglected.

“For every child killed by bombs and bullets, dozens are starving to death and it’s entirely preventable,” said the charity’s Yemen director Tamer Kirolos. “Children who die in this way suffer immensely as their vital organ functions slow down and eventually stop.”

Last month, the UN’s World Food Program warned that the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran had already put 8 million — half of Yemen’s 14 million-population — on the brink of famine.

A database run by ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project) puts Yemen’s losses since early 2016 at 57,000.

A Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen in March 2015 in a bid to restore a government that had been ousted by ethnic Houthi rebels in 2014.

Since seizing Aden, Yemen’s southern port city, in 2015, a military stalemate has ensued, focused on the main port city of Hodeida, a supply line for the Iran-aligned rebels on Yemen’s western Red Sea coast.

The Saudi-led blockade was tightened a year ago.

Aid groups have warned that an all-out assault on the port city would endanger 80 percent of Yemen’s humanitarian aid, including food imports.

Shelling in Hodeida

Hodeida has seen shelling by pro-government and Houthi militias in recent days after the rebels declared a halt to missile and drone attacks on the Saudi-led coalition that includes United Arab Emirates forces.

After talks with rebel leader Abdel Malek al-Houthi, Griffiths was expected to travel on to Hodeida on Thursday.

A draft resolution, cited by Reuters, calls for halts to fighting around Hodeida and other populated areas, an unhindered flow of commercial and humanitarian goods and a fast injection of foreign currency into Yemen’s impoverished economy.

A previous bid to launch UN-sponsored talks in September in Geneva collapsed with the Houthi rebels failed to show up.

(Webpublicapress) NEW YORK – The US media has reported that Turkish authorities have recordings proving Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in early October. Turkey has accused Saudi Arabia of having a gang of men kill the journalist and remove his body, various news media sources reported according to DW (Deutsche Welle).

The Turkish government has audio and video recordings proving that journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul earlier month, the Washington Post reported on Thursday.

Citing unidentified US and Turkish officials, the report said the recordings indicate the Post columnist and US resident was interrogated, tortured and murdered after he entered the Saudi consulate on October 2 to arrange paperwork for a marriage.

It was unclear if US officials had actually seen or heard the recordings, but the Post reported that Turkish officials have described their content to their American counterparts.

Istanbul – 2012 (Photo Webpublicapress by Erol Avdovic)

Turkey accuses Saudi Arabia of murdering Khashoggi and removing his body from the consulate. On Wednesday, Turkish media released police CCTV surveillance videos said to be of a Saudi “assassination squad” alleged to have been sent to kill Khashoggi. The videos by themselves do not paint a whole picture or show scenes from inside the consulate.

US and Turkish officials have speculated off the record that the group of 15 men may have been sent to kidnap Khashoggi and bring him back to the kingdom, and not kill him.

That assessment appears to be based off of US intelligence communications intercepts.

Riyadh denies involvement

Saudi officials have strongly denied they know anything about the fate of Khashoggi, who was close to the government in Riyadh before becoming critical of the kingdom and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

Even as Turkey drip feeds more information about the case to the media and United States, it has been hesitant to go it alone against Saudi Arabia, a regional power with significant financial muscle.

On Thursday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s advisor Ibrahim Kalin said Ankara and Riyadh had set up a “joint working group” at the request of the Saudis “to shed light on all sides of Khashoggi case.”

Trump’s tepid response

US President and King Salman bin Abdulaziz of Saud Arabia meet during the Riyadh Summit (May 2017). Credit: Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has been hesitating to act on the allegations. President Trump has built a strong relationship with Crown Prince Mohammed, who has tried hard to portray himself as a reformer seeking to turn his nation into a tourist destination and innovation hub.

“We can’t let it happen. And we’re being very tough and we have investigators over there and we’re working with Turkey and frankly we’re working with Saudi Arabia,” Trump said.

He was quick to insist, however, that one means of exerting US influence was off the table – arms sales, because “they are spending $110 billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs.” However, the US Congress has the right to impose sanctions and has shown a willingness to do so.

Cory Gardner, a Republican senator, told the press that arms sales would be “a huge concern” if Saudi Arabia was found responsible.

Turkey has been given permission to sweep the Saudi consulate, but has not done so yet.